If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I hate to disagree with you and I do agree that most libtards would certainly grasp the significance of a graph such as the one depicted above buuuuutttttt, as soon as you put numbers to the graph the average liberal arts graduate libtard is gonna get that vacuous look in their eyes and the effect of the graph will be lost. They'll just see the 'Obama Years' and that he's got the tallest building and conclude that he's doing a great job.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you won't need it until they try to take it away."---Thomas Jefferson

I have heard it said by the talking heads that at this point it is mathematically impossible to pay off this debt. That said the only question that remains is who purchased this country and what do they intend to do with it.
You don't keep loaning money to a debtor that can't pay you back so the only other possibility is that those who purchased this country want to keep their investment operating.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

I can't remember if it was Hannity or Wilkow I was listening to today who came up with this subject. But, one thing the Democrats have a great knack for is putting a face to their agenda. Look at the SOTU when Obama trotted out there; an illegal immigrant and victims of mass shootings. Why don't Republicans ever do anything like this? Have a presser and bring out people who saved their own lives thanks to a firearm. Or have a small businessman present who's business is suffering because of Obamacare. Start fighting fire with fire. There are plenty of people who they can use as examples but they never do. Why?

Bush used "Snowflake children" as props when he vetoed stem cell research so this is nothing new.

I have heard it said by the talking heads that at this point it is mathematically impossible to pay off this debt. That said the only question that remains is who purchased this country and what do they intend to do with it.
You don't keep loaning money to a debtor that can't pay you back so the only other possibility is that those who purchased this country want to keep their investment operating.

We had a choice of paying off the debt or getting a tax cut in 2000, (how soon we forget), and chose a tax cut so I am not really sure why we think paying off debt is important now. I also don't remember hearing anything about debt during the Bush years and I suspect the only reason it matters now is because of a democrat president so excuse me if I don't get too excited about conservative hand wringing now...

We had a choice of paying off the debt or getting a tax cut in 2000, (how soon we forget), and chose a tax cut so I am not really sure why we think paying off debt is important now. I also don't remember hearing anything about debt during the Bush years and I suspect the only reason it matters now is because of a democrat president so excuse me if I don't get too excited about conservative hand wringing now...

Well, things did start to go south under Bush. But look at that graph more closely. In 2003, when we invaded Iraq (one of those "two wars on the credit card" that Obama likes to blame for the debt), and when we passed the Bush tax cuts (the other thing Obama likes to blame for the debt) revenue actually started to climb. The revenue and spending lines start to converge, and, as they head up to 2006 it actually looks as if the two might cross, with revenue outpacing spending.

Even the New York Times noticed, spotting unexpected increases in revenue in 2005, and in 2006 noting that a "surprising" increase in tax revenues was closing the budget gap. The heady possibility of surpluses was in the air. But -- look at the graph again -- everything changes in 2007.

What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn't struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade. The trend immediately reversed, and became much worse with President Obama's election in 2008 and inauguration in 2009. (In fact, despite talk of "wars on the credit card," we could save a lot of money by cutting defense spending back to where it was in 2007.)

So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama's fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills).

Economist Herbert Stein observed that something that can't go on forever, won't. The United States can't go on forever increasing its debt by 60% every four years. Therefore, it won't. The only question is how things will stop -- smoothly or catastrophically.